{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-00", "id": "015c14ff8f2bce2886b3", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2fdaa8a61e6e989dd866", "state_index": 0}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-00", "id": "815ec74d63795e229fba", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2fdaa8a61e6e989dd866", "state_index": 0}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-00", "id": "25fd3b3c4282f626ed46", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2fdaa8a61e6e989dd866", "state_index": 0}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-00", "id": "d935968eeb58c19921b0", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2fdaa8a61e6e989dd866", "state_index": 0}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-00", "id": "d13f1a2e8c40252990ad", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2fdaa8a61e6e989dd866", "state_index": 0}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-00", "id": "8019cc363d844813dbd8", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2fdaa8a61e6e989dd866", "state_index": 0}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-00", "id": "e271fff191315cb4c95f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2fdaa8a61e6e989dd866", "state_index": 0}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-00", "id": "a87ef520af09c18399da", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2fdaa8a61e6e989dd866", "state_index": 0}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-00", "id": "1a6ff632056454ec590e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2fdaa8a61e6e989dd866", "state_index": 0}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-00", "id": "48228bad5fddd8b37b78", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2fdaa8a61e6e989dd866", "state_index": 0}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-00", "id": "4297376234661d401e23", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2fdaa8a61e6e989dd866", "state_index": 0}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-00", "id": "1d68e7b5ce26c6964c5b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2fdaa8a61e6e989dd866", "state_index": 0}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-00", "id": "c2413f7d90123acb24ad", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2fdaa8a61e6e989dd866", "state_index": 0}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-00", "id": "e6e94a24bf5956b9c269", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2fdaa8a61e6e989dd866", "state_index": 0}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-00", "id": "7ab1bf4a314eb9f5c626", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2fdaa8a61e6e989dd866", "state_index": 0}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-00", "id": "47c0245bb50e6bc4a3c7", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2fdaa8a61e6e989dd866", "state_index": 0}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-00", "id": "b68c10e7de694171b6f1", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2fdaa8a61e6e989dd866", "state_index": 0}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-00", "id": "5bf29f505c7a2f9e9c05", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2fdaa8a61e6e989dd866", "state_index": 0}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-00", "id": "8e8b3acbcf810123cc28", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2fdaa8a61e6e989dd866", "state_index": 0}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-00", "id": "2ddee44782d3d706ab53", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2fdaa8a61e6e989dd866", "state_index": 0}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-00", "id": "6b35e4fc4f43379e6ac5", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2fdaa8a61e6e989dd866", "state_index": 0}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-01", "id": "b6723763383d76af76b0", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f4bea3d3bcc01056740d", "state_index": 1}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-01", "id": "13cfc2f1d704c4f638d7", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f4bea3d3bcc01056740d", "state_index": 1}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-01", "id": "e7ddbde25f6cc64f0173", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f4bea3d3bcc01056740d", "state_index": 1}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-01", "id": "cbadda9b868ed20922f2", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f4bea3d3bcc01056740d", "state_index": 1}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-01", "id": "df4a8ceee3f90baacfac", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f4bea3d3bcc01056740d", "state_index": 1}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-01", "id": "4c4e3f811deb21bef913", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f4bea3d3bcc01056740d", "state_index": 1}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-01", "id": "3267007a50bb8807136d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f4bea3d3bcc01056740d", "state_index": 1}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-01", "id": "48fb90f24c3d4242e82b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f4bea3d3bcc01056740d", "state_index": 1}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-01", "id": "3dedd848eb46b92cfb39", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f4bea3d3bcc01056740d", "state_index": 1}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-01", "id": "1ad323e49222bc18c745", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f4bea3d3bcc01056740d", "state_index": 1}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-01", "id": "6074288493a32a947fc0", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f4bea3d3bcc01056740d", "state_index": 1}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-01", "id": "783d57b7ea32ce229854", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f4bea3d3bcc01056740d", "state_index": 1}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-01", "id": "6c8e158f8233f279d8ff", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f4bea3d3bcc01056740d", "state_index": 1}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-01", "id": "d9a625b1eb631018cfc2", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f4bea3d3bcc01056740d", "state_index": 1}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-01", "id": "561b33e937bd7209d5fb", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f4bea3d3bcc01056740d", "state_index": 1}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-01", "id": "095e95ec7727ade1585f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f4bea3d3bcc01056740d", "state_index": 1}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-01", "id": "135af450123799df3bb0", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f4bea3d3bcc01056740d", "state_index": 1}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-01", "id": "7d0b33d34c47199d039f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f4bea3d3bcc01056740d", "state_index": 1}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-01", "id": "c1735caeae247e4cd70b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f4bea3d3bcc01056740d", "state_index": 1}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-01", "id": "c9022a9eb5ca6276e0f3", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f4bea3d3bcc01056740d", "state_index": 1}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-01", "id": "b4a8cc21c90fa44d48ff", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f4bea3d3bcc01056740d", "state_index": 1}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-02", "id": "80a9ae01d4926a7a3df2", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "b51b300da2936decc6b7", "state_index": 2}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-02", "id": "4e9f490a071652489c29", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "b51b300da2936decc6b7", "state_index": 2}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-02", "id": "f787e89a3f65103de643", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "b51b300da2936decc6b7", "state_index": 2}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-02", "id": "4b0e8e7b4113f4ba74fc", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "b51b300da2936decc6b7", "state_index": 2}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-02", "id": "4d1ea462fd5871adf170", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "b51b300da2936decc6b7", "state_index": 2}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-02", "id": "df146c56fd12ccc74114", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "b51b300da2936decc6b7", "state_index": 2}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-02", "id": "1eb05c7adcc87bbe7a39", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "b51b300da2936decc6b7", "state_index": 2}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-02", "id": "5746b06ccd881aa8d2d0", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "b51b300da2936decc6b7", "state_index": 2}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-02", "id": "0d25d897f4bd589d115b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "b51b300da2936decc6b7", "state_index": 2}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-02", "id": "e9430935d8f1a260f205", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "b51b300da2936decc6b7", "state_index": 2}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-02", "id": "4bf841a1629aceb4b095", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "b51b300da2936decc6b7", "state_index": 2}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-02", "id": "3c8ae1a72035a83f2eee", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "b51b300da2936decc6b7", "state_index": 2}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-02", "id": "9147b1003b98074a72b6", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "b51b300da2936decc6b7", "state_index": 2}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-02", "id": "4b20b777b555e060ed7e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "b51b300da2936decc6b7", "state_index": 2}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-02", "id": "202d87c86044ab895be9", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "b51b300da2936decc6b7", "state_index": 2}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-02", "id": "a010e5f9448b383189ad", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "b51b300da2936decc6b7", "state_index": 2}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-02", "id": "3568261a0d81dc58495c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "b51b300da2936decc6b7", "state_index": 2}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-02", "id": "693407bc616e13dc6fd1", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "b51b300da2936decc6b7", "state_index": 2}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-02", "id": "1418a14714aef06c6af7", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "b51b300da2936decc6b7", "state_index": 2}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-02", "id": "4185f1e35bad19e067d5", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "b51b300da2936decc6b7", "state_index": 2}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-02", "id": "e21a278dbaa362cb0b2a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "b51b300da2936decc6b7", "state_index": 2}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-03", "id": "b38b550f4a3a5f726463", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e4cfd694c80e08d3e6a5", "state_index": 3}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-03", "id": "9323021a31e7f9bae3d3", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e4cfd694c80e08d3e6a5", "state_index": 3}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-03", "id": "a68763cd65cbf2601409", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e4cfd694c80e08d3e6a5", "state_index": 3}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-03", "id": "31dda1547c6f571c7459", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e4cfd694c80e08d3e6a5", "state_index": 3}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-03", "id": "bf5320be59b3d2bdb3d3", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e4cfd694c80e08d3e6a5", "state_index": 3}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-03", "id": "b544a432cd4e5cd9d51f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e4cfd694c80e08d3e6a5", "state_index": 3}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-03", "id": "f363cb3c4f600e9786c0", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e4cfd694c80e08d3e6a5", "state_index": 3}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-03", "id": "c65b3e5b3958cd9521a3", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e4cfd694c80e08d3e6a5", "state_index": 3}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-03", "id": "5e1e10f9e477bcbf2aae", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e4cfd694c80e08d3e6a5", "state_index": 3}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-03", "id": "5e5f9e4baf43d2074326", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e4cfd694c80e08d3e6a5", "state_index": 3}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-03", "id": "6b812e281e287ffad770", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e4cfd694c80e08d3e6a5", "state_index": 3}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-03", "id": "34d784e660748b418307", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e4cfd694c80e08d3e6a5", "state_index": 3}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-03", "id": "57c065e084f261fed1b9", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e4cfd694c80e08d3e6a5", "state_index": 3}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-03", "id": "29c24a1f1d85f99fff2d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e4cfd694c80e08d3e6a5", "state_index": 3}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-03", "id": "6088be93d7319b65d21f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e4cfd694c80e08d3e6a5", "state_index": 3}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-03", "id": "9ba570a2d722969fda3a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e4cfd694c80e08d3e6a5", "state_index": 3}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-03", "id": "b62658ccec5927ed609d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e4cfd694c80e08d3e6a5", "state_index": 3}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-03", "id": "8b2ee120a199e75db397", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e4cfd694c80e08d3e6a5", "state_index": 3}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-03", "id": "8b71baf53aea7206758a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e4cfd694c80e08d3e6a5", "state_index": 3}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-03", "id": "f0fe72b737dbee5cb5c5", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e4cfd694c80e08d3e6a5", "state_index": 3}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-03", "id": "7fb5daf537f625699870", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e4cfd694c80e08d3e6a5", "state_index": 3}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-04", "id": "39cba85d2de48cfb7f9b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "20460d4ae0db46091e84", "state_index": 4}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-04", "id": "01d9c51d1b8ff2a71c25", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "20460d4ae0db46091e84", "state_index": 4}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-04", "id": "56b0fab53a95257048e2", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "20460d4ae0db46091e84", "state_index": 4}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-04", "id": "c2f093c8ef6be9b1b825", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "20460d4ae0db46091e84", "state_index": 4}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-04", "id": "2d1ef5de14ada458fc47", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "20460d4ae0db46091e84", "state_index": 4}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-04", "id": "2255458172dd7a9e2b3c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "20460d4ae0db46091e84", "state_index": 4}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-04", "id": "e5295c4f615df1ac8161", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "20460d4ae0db46091e84", "state_index": 4}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-04", "id": "a315e97f313d32be9625", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "20460d4ae0db46091e84", "state_index": 4}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-04", "id": "475244f065803ca89506", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "20460d4ae0db46091e84", "state_index": 4}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-04", "id": "df1ecada5a0b5b460c97", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "20460d4ae0db46091e84", "state_index": 4}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-04", "id": "091246d12d47214e602a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "20460d4ae0db46091e84", "state_index": 4}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-04", "id": "cff40e0b84cc4ae321e8", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "20460d4ae0db46091e84", "state_index": 4}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-04", "id": "e61a8a9b4bb0c51c6311", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "20460d4ae0db46091e84", "state_index": 4}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-04", "id": "83783a48a9560f0f4501", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "20460d4ae0db46091e84", "state_index": 4}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-04", "id": "e3d3328be134ee6ca740", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "20460d4ae0db46091e84", "state_index": 4}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-04", "id": "e863945138bd752b9566", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "20460d4ae0db46091e84", "state_index": 4}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-04", "id": "0930b511063d5eaf5c76", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "20460d4ae0db46091e84", "state_index": 4}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-04", "id": "b993109e75bf68213ea6", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "20460d4ae0db46091e84", "state_index": 4}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-04", "id": "df58ae0d077316a5ad66", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "20460d4ae0db46091e84", "state_index": 4}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-04", "id": "1213cb57735c2a03fa44", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "20460d4ae0db46091e84", "state_index": 4}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-04", "id": "21880e28d1b485b880fe", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "20460d4ae0db46091e84", "state_index": 4}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-05", "id": "23b3bc8c5bf8f0f43929", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "51b91ba31984c5939c1c", "state_index": 5}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-05", "id": "54fc5206caee78d6619c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "51b91ba31984c5939c1c", "state_index": 5}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-05", "id": "95bff46f54f3a21e92ef", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "51b91ba31984c5939c1c", "state_index": 5}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-05", "id": "426acf35179cf6d312e0", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "51b91ba31984c5939c1c", "state_index": 5}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-05", "id": "8ddc660de5c1a98bf733", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "51b91ba31984c5939c1c", "state_index": 5}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-05", "id": "fa08151e41fc7383871e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "51b91ba31984c5939c1c", "state_index": 5}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-05", "id": "cc5c69da9b0a81349fc4", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "51b91ba31984c5939c1c", "state_index": 5}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-05", "id": "d27f99201212d81c6266", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "51b91ba31984c5939c1c", "state_index": 5}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-05", "id": "b547634b03d70ecce27f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "51b91ba31984c5939c1c", "state_index": 5}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-05", "id": "a58a20cbe89b631e1c70", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "51b91ba31984c5939c1c", "state_index": 5}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-05", "id": "d91460887323eb8cc95d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "51b91ba31984c5939c1c", "state_index": 5}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-05", "id": "e6fa5d8e9703b258cd07", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "51b91ba31984c5939c1c", "state_index": 5}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-05", "id": "62f74eb3dc18ac74192e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "51b91ba31984c5939c1c", "state_index": 5}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-05", "id": "3e34501a248889af466b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "51b91ba31984c5939c1c", "state_index": 5}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-05", "id": "b3d52b8ff0c3dd5556e1", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "51b91ba31984c5939c1c", "state_index": 5}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-05", "id": "97060a64320143687a54", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "51b91ba31984c5939c1c", "state_index": 5}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-05", "id": "0d539b5ae022079149bc", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "51b91ba31984c5939c1c", "state_index": 5}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-05", "id": "a6c862c511acc8e3faf7", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "51b91ba31984c5939c1c", "state_index": 5}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-05", "id": "3efe233094c536d7a90e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "51b91ba31984c5939c1c", "state_index": 5}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-05", "id": "bcd6764f397cd3f5570a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "51b91ba31984c5939c1c", "state_index": 5}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-05", "id": "b1fc3e72e29812ae1661", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "51b91ba31984c5939c1c", "state_index": 5}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-06", "id": "01d1c7469d658fa8e8d5", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "770c1607f0a11f88f81e", "state_index": 6}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-06", "id": "34478b8d8bd3cbed02cb", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "770c1607f0a11f88f81e", "state_index": 6}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-06", "id": "8451523b1488557dc9cc", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "770c1607f0a11f88f81e", "state_index": 6}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-06", "id": "e670927df868c04d1b19", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "770c1607f0a11f88f81e", "state_index": 6}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-06", "id": "40d96a718782207ac2f7", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "770c1607f0a11f88f81e", "state_index": 6}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-06", "id": "fb9e0b19bdaf4d5781ae", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "770c1607f0a11f88f81e", "state_index": 6}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-06", "id": "892a7b557b9a9fbea02e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "770c1607f0a11f88f81e", "state_index": 6}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-06", "id": "ea63c89918eb4ca2517d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "770c1607f0a11f88f81e", "state_index": 6}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-06", "id": "2637b98ce589cecc98d6", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "770c1607f0a11f88f81e", "state_index": 6}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-06", "id": "d3519d266c795e084f17", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "770c1607f0a11f88f81e", "state_index": 6}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-06", "id": "aaf2768b8ed6d40d64a8", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "770c1607f0a11f88f81e", "state_index": 6}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-06", "id": "0e8de4168b19fcabdcbd", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "770c1607f0a11f88f81e", "state_index": 6}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-06", "id": "1c6a5baa3a69c1827909", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "770c1607f0a11f88f81e", "state_index": 6}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-06", "id": "d688d715dc5e5ec454a1", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "770c1607f0a11f88f81e", "state_index": 6}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-06", "id": "514a946caa687731f774", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "770c1607f0a11f88f81e", "state_index": 6}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-06", "id": "b89bae6b7e234ae215de", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "770c1607f0a11f88f81e", "state_index": 6}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-06", "id": "fc256d5b1af5b7415b52", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "770c1607f0a11f88f81e", "state_index": 6}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-06", "id": "5215abaffebe8015c0bc", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "770c1607f0a11f88f81e", "state_index": 6}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-06", "id": "b03b0b23faef05207431", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "770c1607f0a11f88f81e", "state_index": 6}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-06", "id": "789ef4e928ab501be51f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "770c1607f0a11f88f81e", "state_index": 6}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-06", "id": "e7a6640d3a307e09f605", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "770c1607f0a11f88f81e", "state_index": 6}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-07", "id": "30b25710110bbb5e1a03", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ffd081ada3bd9be9207a", "state_index": 7}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-07", "id": "33f33b16df2c44ee507e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ffd081ada3bd9be9207a", "state_index": 7}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-07", "id": "fcd9a609c5cae6bf9207", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ffd081ada3bd9be9207a", "state_index": 7}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-07", "id": "58e55cfd69bea55297ea", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ffd081ada3bd9be9207a", "state_index": 7}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-07", "id": "f0447a166b8bbed2c35f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ffd081ada3bd9be9207a", "state_index": 7}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-07", "id": "90b23adea8f190279004", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ffd081ada3bd9be9207a", "state_index": 7}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-07", "id": "ab6a2c00e763a6ed9b6f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ffd081ada3bd9be9207a", "state_index": 7}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-07", "id": "f2595ad352ddcbb2f2d1", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ffd081ada3bd9be9207a", "state_index": 7}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-07", "id": "3c5ea5449cfd858c194f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ffd081ada3bd9be9207a", "state_index": 7}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-07", "id": "78bba23d7c2730956788", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ffd081ada3bd9be9207a", "state_index": 7}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-07", "id": "4f0f2fcd22e525407afe", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ffd081ada3bd9be9207a", "state_index": 7}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-07", "id": "dd9fc886f0dcc1e2b6df", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ffd081ada3bd9be9207a", "state_index": 7}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-07", "id": "86bfabfe043b244f94d2", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ffd081ada3bd9be9207a", "state_index": 7}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-07", "id": "fce3c77071ff7b751701", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ffd081ada3bd9be9207a", "state_index": 7}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-07", "id": "455f5638b5dddeafaee5", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ffd081ada3bd9be9207a", "state_index": 7}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-07", "id": "328918cf38cdce43913e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ffd081ada3bd9be9207a", "state_index": 7}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-07", "id": "6f20da4605765644baf2", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ffd081ada3bd9be9207a", "state_index": 7}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-07", "id": "1451355a7a4f3a454254", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ffd081ada3bd9be9207a", "state_index": 7}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-07", "id": "b319ef845f9d2d32e0e3", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ffd081ada3bd9be9207a", "state_index": 7}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-07", "id": "74eba7cfb04a82d02e7c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ffd081ada3bd9be9207a", "state_index": 7}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-07", "id": "29a1d13ed2d89bc6f261", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ffd081ada3bd9be9207a", "state_index": 7}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-08", "id": "772ea7ad86e982b5d589", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2c3a0cb61f7bae78739e", "state_index": 8}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-08", "id": "00912f65d640d020606e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2c3a0cb61f7bae78739e", "state_index": 8}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-08", "id": "57a1eace9e7237d1c391", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2c3a0cb61f7bae78739e", "state_index": 8}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-08", "id": "dde2d40f9264a481328b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2c3a0cb61f7bae78739e", "state_index": 8}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-08", "id": "b794137968f16b718566", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2c3a0cb61f7bae78739e", "state_index": 8}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-08", "id": "f9c0bb24de4bcbd7c411", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2c3a0cb61f7bae78739e", "state_index": 8}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-08", "id": "9f417fdc52d2f71b6894", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2c3a0cb61f7bae78739e", "state_index": 8}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-08", "id": "5130a007d126d4eb59bb", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2c3a0cb61f7bae78739e", "state_index": 8}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-08", "id": "c27c87ae486116c6c65d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2c3a0cb61f7bae78739e", "state_index": 8}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-08", "id": "9abc1509a5dd02fab0f1", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2c3a0cb61f7bae78739e", "state_index": 8}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-08", "id": "700386165c6ac0f6a47d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2c3a0cb61f7bae78739e", "state_index": 8}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-08", "id": "48430eca0a8d18dd1e2e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2c3a0cb61f7bae78739e", "state_index": 8}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-08", "id": "60d28f4562cbed8dc1d8", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2c3a0cb61f7bae78739e", "state_index": 8}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-08", "id": "804dd056dfed56bfa455", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2c3a0cb61f7bae78739e", "state_index": 8}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-08", "id": "cedf4bb3fbf498f6c0a3", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2c3a0cb61f7bae78739e", "state_index": 8}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-08", "id": "a7a60ad81cce37455091", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2c3a0cb61f7bae78739e", "state_index": 8}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-08", "id": "1c1a740eb0d7f48d17c4", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2c3a0cb61f7bae78739e", "state_index": 8}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-08", "id": "f3b7230c32c6b40404e7", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2c3a0cb61f7bae78739e", "state_index": 8}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-08", "id": "7ddfc0bfbd30b41ee7ec", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2c3a0cb61f7bae78739e", "state_index": 8}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-08", "id": "bc3b0cccafdc382b5168", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2c3a0cb61f7bae78739e", "state_index": 8}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-08", "id": "88be5fbbd8b7d7c6de8e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2c3a0cb61f7bae78739e", "state_index": 8}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-09", "id": "c3cbbae0daed5f9939cf", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "42ed4cbfde7f2f64274b", "state_index": 9}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-09", "id": "2b5d421b25c9d9fe505e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "42ed4cbfde7f2f64274b", "state_index": 9}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-09", "id": "bc9fbcc5aad00f4bfd89", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "42ed4cbfde7f2f64274b", "state_index": 9}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-09", "id": "2628c2ca912735d6c5df", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "42ed4cbfde7f2f64274b", "state_index": 9}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-09", "id": "340e071a263851ae7cc5", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "42ed4cbfde7f2f64274b", "state_index": 9}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-09", "id": "529dbff0a72c765c605b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "42ed4cbfde7f2f64274b", "state_index": 9}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-09", "id": "c3323814f12b62034c30", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "42ed4cbfde7f2f64274b", "state_index": 9}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-09", "id": "a5917d05294f7ceba7af", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "42ed4cbfde7f2f64274b", "state_index": 9}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-09", "id": "97fed6ab1a9cb55a2f61", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "42ed4cbfde7f2f64274b", "state_index": 9}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-09", "id": "6579eca7ea02a3f5d5ce", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "42ed4cbfde7f2f64274b", "state_index": 9}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-09", "id": "b4c4311830209ab25b29", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "42ed4cbfde7f2f64274b", "state_index": 9}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-09", "id": "8378b16d3504101615a3", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "42ed4cbfde7f2f64274b", "state_index": 9}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-09", "id": "4b5c4d91e91e77e81e50", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "42ed4cbfde7f2f64274b", "state_index": 9}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-09", "id": "4fc1c85d53d278e97783", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "42ed4cbfde7f2f64274b", "state_index": 9}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-09", "id": "9f212a160627bc26112f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "42ed4cbfde7f2f64274b", "state_index": 9}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-09", "id": "9aba50a0e8e6ce069975", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "42ed4cbfde7f2f64274b", "state_index": 9}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-09", "id": "fe89b2552555023f3871", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "42ed4cbfde7f2f64274b", "state_index": 9}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-09", "id": "074e48d02c7055731f23", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "42ed4cbfde7f2f64274b", "state_index": 9}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-09", "id": "bacff968445af3f3e634", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "42ed4cbfde7f2f64274b", "state_index": 9}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-09", "id": "1598a0282f110e938fd6", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "42ed4cbfde7f2f64274b", "state_index": 9}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-09", "id": "0cd561f6702d31545165", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "42ed4cbfde7f2f64274b", "state_index": 9}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-10", "id": "a79e2f095b74dbce9e03", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6dd193172b9240a04bf9", "state_index": 10}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-10", "id": "c5944de25c7acf20824f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6dd193172b9240a04bf9", "state_index": 10}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-10", "id": "5bafed68c32bd93b93e4", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6dd193172b9240a04bf9", "state_index": 10}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-10", "id": "1770bbdcf5d94bc1c563", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6dd193172b9240a04bf9", "state_index": 10}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-10", "id": "4323970d5a49c2701af0", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6dd193172b9240a04bf9", "state_index": 10}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-10", "id": "bb1c5b03e1390909f9fe", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6dd193172b9240a04bf9", "state_index": 10}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-10", "id": "cb81fe83692c3e7a7615", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6dd193172b9240a04bf9", "state_index": 10}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-10", "id": "1076fc08d4f06a19c05d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6dd193172b9240a04bf9", "state_index": 10}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-10", "id": "6b6381ab7824d9f2a898", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6dd193172b9240a04bf9", "state_index": 10}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-10", "id": "25e470de8b7a0facb1eb", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6dd193172b9240a04bf9", "state_index": 10}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-10", "id": "1eed069fe528eade80b5", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6dd193172b9240a04bf9", "state_index": 10}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-10", "id": "2ae10a22a6dc2195ff73", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6dd193172b9240a04bf9", "state_index": 10}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-10", "id": "f447e9e4dac30a14fa4e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6dd193172b9240a04bf9", "state_index": 10}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-10", "id": "39966e5ed40b0ab8dc7c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6dd193172b9240a04bf9", "state_index": 10}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-10", "id": "1c3d718ddc961a6a91f1", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6dd193172b9240a04bf9", "state_index": 10}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-10", "id": "4674b161a921c8b00e3b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6dd193172b9240a04bf9", "state_index": 10}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-10", "id": "738968ceab05d2b52515", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6dd193172b9240a04bf9", "state_index": 10}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-10", "id": "d414d247aa692f2c533e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6dd193172b9240a04bf9", "state_index": 10}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-10", "id": "d2aebaf8c656c175cb4a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6dd193172b9240a04bf9", "state_index": 10}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-10", "id": "eb9e35032c558a9c3e5c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6dd193172b9240a04bf9", "state_index": 10}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-10", "id": "12a4dba6ea14f54817a0", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6dd193172b9240a04bf9", "state_index": 10}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-11", "id": "f7adbab4326ba6b8b1a9", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3200eb252d6737e03027", "state_index": 11}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-11", "id": "2907971ad82170c99b31", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3200eb252d6737e03027", "state_index": 11}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-11", "id": "475d912050d67900e6f9", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3200eb252d6737e03027", "state_index": 11}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-11", "id": "4585e68751d706e3cc56", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3200eb252d6737e03027", "state_index": 11}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-11", "id": "be5a49798b0769fa4652", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3200eb252d6737e03027", "state_index": 11}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-11", "id": "32115089340ecbf8d5d2", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3200eb252d6737e03027", "state_index": 11}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-11", "id": "d2c683512a17317dee8d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3200eb252d6737e03027", "state_index": 11}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-11", "id": "b51c5d8b42f387dedbdb", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3200eb252d6737e03027", "state_index": 11}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-11", "id": "235c09d1c37ca3c4d9ac", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3200eb252d6737e03027", "state_index": 11}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-11", "id": "65e67e1f8ad9767ee07c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3200eb252d6737e03027", "state_index": 11}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-11", "id": "df78e28ff00f0621140f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3200eb252d6737e03027", "state_index": 11}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-11", "id": "904eda880260bdedd7f9", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3200eb252d6737e03027", "state_index": 11}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-11", "id": "a95049fcacee22e43c54", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3200eb252d6737e03027", "state_index": 11}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-11", "id": "56e7dc24d2b649da06ef", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3200eb252d6737e03027", "state_index": 11}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-11", "id": "93d0b7ea6c7e6282f3f0", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3200eb252d6737e03027", "state_index": 11}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-11", "id": "845a552c244bd4c0b719", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3200eb252d6737e03027", "state_index": 11}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-11", "id": "49386162dad23eac1544", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3200eb252d6737e03027", "state_index": 11}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-11", "id": "60f749f9bc6738525c42", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3200eb252d6737e03027", "state_index": 11}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-11", "id": "66e5d19f27d6b61c3cda", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3200eb252d6737e03027", "state_index": 11}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-11", "id": "2aa0e6d248814c6909e0", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3200eb252d6737e03027", "state_index": 11}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-11", "id": "79ad83bf2f32860bef98", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3200eb252d6737e03027", "state_index": 11}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-12", "id": "f6063dceb39e49118d39", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c0cbeb97315307af8111", "state_index": 12}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-12", "id": "9b76149fc15ad5b6e327", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c0cbeb97315307af8111", "state_index": 12}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-12", "id": "90a938270e4e2de0b383", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c0cbeb97315307af8111", "state_index": 12}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-12", "id": "4ea1216fb9a9fb78b77c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c0cbeb97315307af8111", "state_index": 12}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-12", "id": "0d80f96281334874e74d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c0cbeb97315307af8111", "state_index": 12}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-12", "id": "383ef0b427ec8a498c4b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c0cbeb97315307af8111", "state_index": 12}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-12", "id": "70f2e6b1ea14f5e28f15", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c0cbeb97315307af8111", "state_index": 12}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-12", "id": "8f74cecf670b509544da", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c0cbeb97315307af8111", "state_index": 12}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-12", "id": "6b9954c91552c0a33b9f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c0cbeb97315307af8111", "state_index": 12}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-12", "id": "cc74bb2eb6e7e61f2d70", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c0cbeb97315307af8111", "state_index": 12}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-12", "id": "3893f050e31def5f92d2", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c0cbeb97315307af8111", "state_index": 12}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-12", "id": "44c227b45b3f1f9f2208", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c0cbeb97315307af8111", "state_index": 12}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-12", "id": "c59c11aa06b83f0d4741", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c0cbeb97315307af8111", "state_index": 12}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-12", "id": "1c3a9f356bdca8162925", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c0cbeb97315307af8111", "state_index": 12}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-12", "id": "ad3b39c63a87f3016a2c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c0cbeb97315307af8111", "state_index": 12}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-12", "id": "59554f602acfc7513126", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c0cbeb97315307af8111", "state_index": 12}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-12", "id": "a27cb451f33eb26a40cb", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c0cbeb97315307af8111", "state_index": 12}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-12", "id": "44283a4615a0fa1b9525", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c0cbeb97315307af8111", "state_index": 12}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-12", "id": "dd3cfc0bdc9a0212adb9", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c0cbeb97315307af8111", "state_index": 12}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-12", "id": "520cca27d1d47b977e70", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c0cbeb97315307af8111", "state_index": 12}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-12", "id": "d71ecc7c21b846622bfa", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c0cbeb97315307af8111", "state_index": 12}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-13", "id": "f107ce422a3ca3fc63e4", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "428176cd8ad2c7a74eea", "state_index": 13}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-13", "id": "28f62d6b08087bd0e93e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "428176cd8ad2c7a74eea", "state_index": 13}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-13", "id": "8bdbb1f6a6278446c6c0", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "428176cd8ad2c7a74eea", "state_index": 13}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-13", "id": "7b9ccedb2ae2ee784110", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "428176cd8ad2c7a74eea", "state_index": 13}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-13", "id": "520c71da513ecd476f19", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "428176cd8ad2c7a74eea", "state_index": 13}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-13", "id": "b3159771bbd435c2b943", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "428176cd8ad2c7a74eea", "state_index": 13}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-13", "id": "0eb6cdcff58a7393b727", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "428176cd8ad2c7a74eea", "state_index": 13}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-13", "id": "5cf6b9d5124aa5584524", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "428176cd8ad2c7a74eea", "state_index": 13}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-13", "id": "1da60c511f94579eb79b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "428176cd8ad2c7a74eea", "state_index": 13}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-13", "id": "5e62f54a49d01efc1d2d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "428176cd8ad2c7a74eea", "state_index": 13}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-13", "id": "1733951af9a319d1124d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "428176cd8ad2c7a74eea", "state_index": 13}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-13", "id": "33fabcc277e26932e531", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "428176cd8ad2c7a74eea", "state_index": 13}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-13", "id": "44333b92e04569bb91c1", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "428176cd8ad2c7a74eea", "state_index": 13}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-13", "id": "a6f1586cf60fb2392558", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "428176cd8ad2c7a74eea", "state_index": 13}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-13", "id": "7eb931719fefc8fe4162", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "428176cd8ad2c7a74eea", "state_index": 13}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-13", "id": "0bc483d03b11f6c04e19", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "428176cd8ad2c7a74eea", "state_index": 13}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-13", "id": "d80be1952ceca19e8698", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "428176cd8ad2c7a74eea", "state_index": 13}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-13", "id": "e9e74569e646f774b313", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "428176cd8ad2c7a74eea", "state_index": 13}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-13", "id": "5e4bfe89bd0af8223b20", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "428176cd8ad2c7a74eea", "state_index": 13}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-13", "id": "5acbad364733f56e115e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "428176cd8ad2c7a74eea", "state_index": 13}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-13", "id": "04aed658533dc50ad988", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "428176cd8ad2c7a74eea", "state_index": 13}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-14", "id": "c699595c95e86e9495cc", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "389e65bf1ba709b84b12", "state_index": 14}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-14", "id": "bded8ebce57c079dd7b1", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "389e65bf1ba709b84b12", "state_index": 14}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-14", "id": "89415a9977b5c255c897", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "389e65bf1ba709b84b12", "state_index": 14}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-14", "id": "37799e145741c4937ae9", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "389e65bf1ba709b84b12", "state_index": 14}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-14", "id": "ce624966eb527d833d3f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "389e65bf1ba709b84b12", "state_index": 14}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-14", "id": "77be6c33e11ff9f34aa1", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "389e65bf1ba709b84b12", "state_index": 14}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-14", "id": "efdb684bf09f181cad8b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "389e65bf1ba709b84b12", "state_index": 14}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-14", "id": "75212527ab9bbb4a5223", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "389e65bf1ba709b84b12", "state_index": 14}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-14", "id": "5138003c7d7b7dbe07ac", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "389e65bf1ba709b84b12", "state_index": 14}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-14", "id": "eabeedc5343c0be5ebd5", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "389e65bf1ba709b84b12", "state_index": 14}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-14", "id": "eb4c1a2b33ce2d29cecb", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "389e65bf1ba709b84b12", "state_index": 14}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-14", "id": "7b24cddc4ab676e0f47a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "389e65bf1ba709b84b12", "state_index": 14}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-14", "id": "8c8af17031bda9eabb72", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "389e65bf1ba709b84b12", "state_index": 14}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-14", "id": "d263156a683f0252e478", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "389e65bf1ba709b84b12", "state_index": 14}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-14", "id": "86e1f830be769c8e289f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "389e65bf1ba709b84b12", "state_index": 14}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-14", "id": "64ee695a11f63138338d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "389e65bf1ba709b84b12", "state_index": 14}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-14", "id": "a92fdcc54e9de25433f5", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "389e65bf1ba709b84b12", "state_index": 14}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-14", "id": "9dd0200555bab6512d92", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "389e65bf1ba709b84b12", "state_index": 14}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-14", "id": "48d6cb5d9f1e88e4ca02", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "389e65bf1ba709b84b12", "state_index": 14}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-14", "id": "7460179231b846a81ea9", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "389e65bf1ba709b84b12", "state_index": 14}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-14", "id": "64b4392339718e3c1ae3", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "389e65bf1ba709b84b12", "state_index": 14}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-15", "id": "e2f701de9f4f83e6609b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "45f8ead2522a14384cdc", "state_index": 15}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-15", "id": "c39a7ef52e871f88e007", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "45f8ead2522a14384cdc", "state_index": 15}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-15", "id": "28cc9946a6bd2d7c2324", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "45f8ead2522a14384cdc", "state_index": 15}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-15", "id": "0a990b128482d86ea05f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "45f8ead2522a14384cdc", "state_index": 15}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-15", "id": "67014f7bdf7436b14fa3", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "45f8ead2522a14384cdc", "state_index": 15}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-15", "id": "3275955d8faffe8db053", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "45f8ead2522a14384cdc", "state_index": 15}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-15", "id": "f86a216f8319af49494f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "45f8ead2522a14384cdc", "state_index": 15}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-15", "id": "5ba67dc1a1bee72f25a4", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "45f8ead2522a14384cdc", "state_index": 15}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-15", "id": "74595c5cba366f988256", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "45f8ead2522a14384cdc", "state_index": 15}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-15", "id": "329fc297eae8311dc140", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "45f8ead2522a14384cdc", "state_index": 15}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-15", "id": "76c5efd74519823a1127", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "45f8ead2522a14384cdc", "state_index": 15}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-15", "id": "d32857e7ebdaddace9b6", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "45f8ead2522a14384cdc", "state_index": 15}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-15", "id": "b1bb3eb6ede28893d0f0", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "45f8ead2522a14384cdc", "state_index": 15}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-15", "id": "ade1f2defc12db8f3dd2", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "45f8ead2522a14384cdc", "state_index": 15}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-15", "id": "0d01f54b4d3c56322dd4", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "45f8ead2522a14384cdc", "state_index": 15}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-15", "id": "431260cc630b9298d4f0", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "45f8ead2522a14384cdc", "state_index": 15}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-15", "id": "5c7687414b3de39cb868", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "45f8ead2522a14384cdc", "state_index": 15}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-15", "id": "a44eeec278e9589355b0", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "45f8ead2522a14384cdc", "state_index": 15}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-15", "id": "705521da0f32ec3cb2dc", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "45f8ead2522a14384cdc", "state_index": 15}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-15", "id": "5610ae0d3fb1f4ba0590", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "45f8ead2522a14384cdc", "state_index": 15}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-15", "id": "f6acddbeab3435d73c48", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "45f8ead2522a14384cdc", "state_index": 15}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-16", "id": "7c7a48b9f0a2e617705c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3ecec8e2c166e397ad07", "state_index": 16}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-16", "id": "52c2956ea371581d7188", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3ecec8e2c166e397ad07", "state_index": 16}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-16", "id": "f5bd5f642308113555b7", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3ecec8e2c166e397ad07", "state_index": 16}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-16", "id": "d0d50dcef317f630a702", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3ecec8e2c166e397ad07", "state_index": 16}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-16", "id": "2f9b07aba6f967fa92dd", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3ecec8e2c166e397ad07", "state_index": 16}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-16", "id": "8ce842cdbd943735c60e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3ecec8e2c166e397ad07", "state_index": 16}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-16", "id": "95d3684561ad5d38e0d6", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3ecec8e2c166e397ad07", "state_index": 16}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-16", "id": "21a9bb41a8ac52b99fb4", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3ecec8e2c166e397ad07", "state_index": 16}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-16", "id": "2140bfa60bdd26022f05", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3ecec8e2c166e397ad07", "state_index": 16}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-16", "id": "3c1ff0c793124585f1ad", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3ecec8e2c166e397ad07", "state_index": 16}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-16", "id": "a1f3c5ea561be1b8667e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3ecec8e2c166e397ad07", "state_index": 16}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-16", "id": "0e7b2ab1499e2691ad38", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3ecec8e2c166e397ad07", "state_index": 16}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-16", "id": "21938acb79a8a74da58b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3ecec8e2c166e397ad07", "state_index": 16}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-16", "id": "ce3f2e60d6f0d2e430db", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3ecec8e2c166e397ad07", "state_index": 16}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-16", "id": "7fcb0962d0b61ac5ef76", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3ecec8e2c166e397ad07", "state_index": 16}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-16", "id": "0b0e021bf9632e8b140b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3ecec8e2c166e397ad07", "state_index": 16}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-16", "id": "adc7892e5e3539f8e655", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3ecec8e2c166e397ad07", "state_index": 16}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-16", "id": "a31821385153740aaf01", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3ecec8e2c166e397ad07", "state_index": 16}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-16", "id": "33a616441e3d3a93b486", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3ecec8e2c166e397ad07", "state_index": 16}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-16", "id": "8230f0e5f243615cceb1", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3ecec8e2c166e397ad07", "state_index": 16}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-16", "id": "6fd5e5d46e88d4a33537", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3ecec8e2c166e397ad07", "state_index": 16}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-17", "id": "687ddaf5e65139bfdefa", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a71a17a287f3d30db2aa", "state_index": 17}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-17", "id": "ddae9b5f4ced5a86d1e5", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a71a17a287f3d30db2aa", "state_index": 17}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-17", "id": "d6b0a3e442a14d7f3769", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a71a17a287f3d30db2aa", "state_index": 17}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-17", "id": "94f80ee140e31162aebe", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a71a17a287f3d30db2aa", "state_index": 17}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-17", "id": "9d7ea494739dd6778251", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a71a17a287f3d30db2aa", "state_index": 17}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-17", "id": "1dc77103b26778f638d3", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a71a17a287f3d30db2aa", "state_index": 17}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-17", "id": "cf496ef141ae03f2b87c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a71a17a287f3d30db2aa", "state_index": 17}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-17", "id": "9e080cb1e47e90f06e23", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a71a17a287f3d30db2aa", "state_index": 17}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-17", "id": "f3a4decf391f7aac544c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a71a17a287f3d30db2aa", "state_index": 17}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-17", "id": "0fdd3a6b50496e1a9d11", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a71a17a287f3d30db2aa", "state_index": 17}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-17", "id": "494a27249b6cc7a8aa58", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a71a17a287f3d30db2aa", "state_index": 17}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-17", "id": "9eef00508120ecc8f05a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a71a17a287f3d30db2aa", "state_index": 17}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-17", "id": "72df524be4a61b7f3bea", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a71a17a287f3d30db2aa", "state_index": 17}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-17", "id": "a333270affa580ed9c75", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a71a17a287f3d30db2aa", "state_index": 17}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-17", "id": "e83278909fd10abd0229", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a71a17a287f3d30db2aa", "state_index": 17}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-17", "id": "13e9883ec49a689afb60", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a71a17a287f3d30db2aa", "state_index": 17}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-17", "id": "e483bbd072901577279f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a71a17a287f3d30db2aa", "state_index": 17}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-17", "id": "8310f45cf20783826959", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a71a17a287f3d30db2aa", "state_index": 17}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-17", "id": "4b4b7bea620fdcf93897", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a71a17a287f3d30db2aa", "state_index": 17}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-17", "id": "e70b706ae3e066d3d710", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a71a17a287f3d30db2aa", "state_index": 17}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-17", "id": "0d58f07d3b70f2bdea0c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a71a17a287f3d30db2aa", "state_index": 17}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-18", "id": "089f4a6f39b20bf65ab7", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "986d7eaba0c7e9738e79", "state_index": 18}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-18", "id": "efa2f8b62640b090d2ec", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "986d7eaba0c7e9738e79", "state_index": 18}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-18", "id": "240b744a86bd327fee5d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "986d7eaba0c7e9738e79", "state_index": 18}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-18", "id": "0d17bbec4df530c9e46e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "986d7eaba0c7e9738e79", "state_index": 18}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-18", "id": "f73dd01d89bf08482a78", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "986d7eaba0c7e9738e79", "state_index": 18}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-18", "id": "ca7e78b1575d5ef4e5d8", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "986d7eaba0c7e9738e79", "state_index": 18}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-18", "id": "ca25ed2ac4e679fbc5e3", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "986d7eaba0c7e9738e79", "state_index": 18}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-18", "id": "6a0866f21c64756f358c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "986d7eaba0c7e9738e79", "state_index": 18}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-18", "id": "9c24dd25567db8712fcc", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "986d7eaba0c7e9738e79", "state_index": 18}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-18", "id": "f005c3e61bd1d6ccfdbe", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "986d7eaba0c7e9738e79", "state_index": 18}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-18", "id": "63f771d8a481a06f3342", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "986d7eaba0c7e9738e79", "state_index": 18}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-18", "id": "48e7776fb0baebe2a66d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "986d7eaba0c7e9738e79", "state_index": 18}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-18", "id": "60b45469994575e2fc84", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "986d7eaba0c7e9738e79", "state_index": 18}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-18", "id": "edb4b6fd6eb1e53b9cf7", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "986d7eaba0c7e9738e79", "state_index": 18}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-18", "id": "904279a4f2fb5a4f0d66", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "986d7eaba0c7e9738e79", "state_index": 18}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-18", "id": "f707e1c1413b00e25dad", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "986d7eaba0c7e9738e79", "state_index": 18}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-18", "id": "a646c5fbe46135aa4726", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "986d7eaba0c7e9738e79", "state_index": 18}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-18", "id": "e28d28de0350e52b527e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "986d7eaba0c7e9738e79", "state_index": 18}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-18", "id": "4e2c08f47b28e1a56aed", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "986d7eaba0c7e9738e79", "state_index": 18}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-18", "id": "e573f7277dce8030e4d6", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "986d7eaba0c7e9738e79", "state_index": 18}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-18", "id": "9a7778146b159a1c015b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "986d7eaba0c7e9738e79", "state_index": 18}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-19", "id": "ca1092c154e9e564fb70", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ca2e0b043985fa49bcd2", "state_index": 19}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-19", "id": "94d2cab7215d28b3615c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ca2e0b043985fa49bcd2", "state_index": 19}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-19", "id": "195a9f349d825c8082a6", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ca2e0b043985fa49bcd2", "state_index": 19}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-19", "id": "a942c7cd6d804677cd2c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ca2e0b043985fa49bcd2", "state_index": 19}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-19", "id": "d963171e5275c66db8aa", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ca2e0b043985fa49bcd2", "state_index": 19}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-19", "id": "90961ee4aeaae94a0f14", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ca2e0b043985fa49bcd2", "state_index": 19}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-19", "id": "b50d12afefb3162c5552", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ca2e0b043985fa49bcd2", "state_index": 19}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-19", "id": "d695a0207c672096e398", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ca2e0b043985fa49bcd2", "state_index": 19}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-19", "id": "1727fcc6096fad7b0b11", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ca2e0b043985fa49bcd2", "state_index": 19}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-19", "id": "cbfdcce392ba5042ea10", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ca2e0b043985fa49bcd2", "state_index": 19}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-19", "id": "7f5ed00e26014a6be0a1", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ca2e0b043985fa49bcd2", "state_index": 19}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-19", "id": "38ab62add3f2d6252d0a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ca2e0b043985fa49bcd2", "state_index": 19}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-19", "id": "a99a4cdc6c59bdb3c3d0", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ca2e0b043985fa49bcd2", "state_index": 19}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-19", "id": "19137327d4615901f51c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ca2e0b043985fa49bcd2", "state_index": 19}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-19", "id": "60d4d3a9f39771d322be", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ca2e0b043985fa49bcd2", "state_index": 19}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-19", "id": "9c3b24742ba8d4125f96", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ca2e0b043985fa49bcd2", "state_index": 19}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-19", "id": "1f9bff56b4450521b609", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ca2e0b043985fa49bcd2", "state_index": 19}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-19", "id": "0552ea3a7d5a23a26100", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ca2e0b043985fa49bcd2", "state_index": 19}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-19", "id": "ae520f29703e870ab961", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ca2e0b043985fa49bcd2", "state_index": 19}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-19", "id": "e9b6eed6c733d8595184", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ca2e0b043985fa49bcd2", "state_index": 19}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-19", "id": "94454549a93b8534e840", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "ca2e0b043985fa49bcd2", "state_index": 19}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-20", "id": "fe2b300670c0b343f926", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "85051ba3c30277824ebe", "state_index": 20}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\""}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-20", "id": "038a96ffb802a7c63bce", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "85051ba3c30277824ebe", "state_index": 20}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\""}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-20", "id": "20b7a7decb2f864285a0", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "85051ba3c30277824ebe", "state_index": 20}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\""}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-20", "id": "5fdbb2dad19c820dfb19", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "85051ba3c30277824ebe", "state_index": 20}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\""}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-20", "id": "d70c0882cf9289f8e30b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "85051ba3c30277824ebe", "state_index": 20}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\""}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-20", "id": "6ebfa92d6286edf7ed7b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "85051ba3c30277824ebe", "state_index": 20}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\""}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-20", "id": "d0e0d78168e9332ff3fd", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "85051ba3c30277824ebe", "state_index": 20}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\""}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-20", "id": "136271e81194b002a85f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "85051ba3c30277824ebe", "state_index": 20}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\""}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-20", "id": "6c653e0c109f5060d6f0", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "85051ba3c30277824ebe", "state_index": 20}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\""}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-20", "id": "ec7fe0756f4796bf2f79", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "85051ba3c30277824ebe", "state_index": 20}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\""}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-20", "id": "bfe37dddadd0e9048936", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "85051ba3c30277824ebe", "state_index": 20}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\""}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-20", "id": "54ef1575bdbe8c0b8f5d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "85051ba3c30277824ebe", "state_index": 20}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\""}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-20", "id": "8a95731c7b422963ae8e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "85051ba3c30277824ebe", "state_index": 20}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\""}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-20", "id": "f3927140a9c6105f7b1f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "85051ba3c30277824ebe", "state_index": 20}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\""}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-20", "id": "83a4cef1eecb803a1f94", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "85051ba3c30277824ebe", "state_index": 20}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\""}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-20", "id": "7b0a8eb75c441acb2085", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "85051ba3c30277824ebe", "state_index": 20}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\""}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-20", "id": "e31c3d5a37c5b68e1b48", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "85051ba3c30277824ebe", "state_index": 20}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\""}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-20", "id": "f10c6cda870023dd5514", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "85051ba3c30277824ebe", "state_index": 20}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\""}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-20", "id": "08fa07ef7b1270bc85e6", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "85051ba3c30277824ebe", "state_index": 20}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\""}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-20", "id": "cc89a9cfac19e393fe1f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "85051ba3c30277824ebe", "state_index": 20}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\""}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-20", "id": "be1b4929bc5f7b9cf72f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "85051ba3c30277824ebe", "state_index": 20}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\""}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-21", "id": "404a05891bc3d8b699b6", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e7798dab5f4f121cab77", "state_index": 21}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-21", "id": "6cb5f0fa2b3150c5b93e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e7798dab5f4f121cab77", "state_index": 21}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-21", "id": "b303f9716b1bb595ea41", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e7798dab5f4f121cab77", "state_index": 21}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-21", "id": "fe25166120e0035f30cb", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e7798dab5f4f121cab77", "state_index": 21}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-21", "id": "23c9379235538dae9f67", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e7798dab5f4f121cab77", "state_index": 21}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-21", "id": "8d8b01ab534dc1e3b634", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e7798dab5f4f121cab77", "state_index": 21}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-21", "id": "7fcb5228e3d7223077b7", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e7798dab5f4f121cab77", "state_index": 21}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-21", "id": "3eaeed7daaef1cf70815", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e7798dab5f4f121cab77", "state_index": 21}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-21", "id": "2c0ab06dd4f22a596e74", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e7798dab5f4f121cab77", "state_index": 21}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-21", "id": "2e9408b1f09f38125f10", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e7798dab5f4f121cab77", "state_index": 21}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-21", "id": "b9cc56f42c97f3d58f22", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e7798dab5f4f121cab77", "state_index": 21}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-21", "id": "2594024c13003de115ca", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e7798dab5f4f121cab77", "state_index": 21}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-21", "id": "9984a8df2760f7f9e773", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e7798dab5f4f121cab77", "state_index": 21}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-21", "id": "009d9ee529db01ce8fd7", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e7798dab5f4f121cab77", "state_index": 21}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-21", "id": "3a1701290691a921d898", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e7798dab5f4f121cab77", "state_index": 21}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-21", "id": "6f700cfac5bc3ab319cc", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e7798dab5f4f121cab77", "state_index": 21}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-21", "id": "c5515eb2f45a4ebb316b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e7798dab5f4f121cab77", "state_index": 21}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-21", "id": "c354d19d38d8a143b4a6", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e7798dab5f4f121cab77", "state_index": 21}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-21", "id": "603c8461436ada84dde3", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e7798dab5f4f121cab77", "state_index": 21}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-21", "id": "81e1a8586cf3ebc4f0be", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e7798dab5f4f121cab77", "state_index": 21}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-21", "id": "ddc75c29ea11b8c5c850", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e7798dab5f4f121cab77", "state_index": 21}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-22", "id": "40773bba888dbe50fd22", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "928ebc7817a8f1cac3e4", "state_index": 22}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-22", "id": "6cee3c76a53e7225bb89", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "928ebc7817a8f1cac3e4", "state_index": 22}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-22", "id": "d48f87c4fe0b1bd7004a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "928ebc7817a8f1cac3e4", "state_index": 22}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-22", "id": "8deea2e1dd2342b1ae08", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "928ebc7817a8f1cac3e4", "state_index": 22}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-22", "id": "bde3cce7426b7294186a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "928ebc7817a8f1cac3e4", "state_index": 22}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-22", "id": "ac1451bdad94987941bc", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "928ebc7817a8f1cac3e4", "state_index": 22}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-22", "id": "7515fd024bddce143317", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "928ebc7817a8f1cac3e4", "state_index": 22}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-22", "id": "e447dc0a97db78204029", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "928ebc7817a8f1cac3e4", "state_index": 22}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-22", "id": "07e501b417d442b7834c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "928ebc7817a8f1cac3e4", "state_index": 22}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-22", "id": "0ccb9944c0baccf075a0", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "928ebc7817a8f1cac3e4", "state_index": 22}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-22", "id": "deb859001b4e62bbdbad", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "928ebc7817a8f1cac3e4", "state_index": 22}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-22", "id": "4371b0cf43fde8f414eb", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "928ebc7817a8f1cac3e4", "state_index": 22}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-22", "id": "3f04847c58f5d62b2a00", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "928ebc7817a8f1cac3e4", "state_index": 22}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-22", "id": "6a7dc790936f8c2eab9b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "928ebc7817a8f1cac3e4", "state_index": 22}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-22", "id": "b94c86ff7d0393caec82", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "928ebc7817a8f1cac3e4", "state_index": 22}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-22", "id": "2c4ddb6a893381977462", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "928ebc7817a8f1cac3e4", "state_index": 22}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-22", "id": "1b2bf77b106f31041d9d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "928ebc7817a8f1cac3e4", "state_index": 22}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-22", "id": "9fdf1a765be3a115eeb5", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "928ebc7817a8f1cac3e4", "state_index": 22}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-22", "id": "071f16f30574e19fcda0", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "928ebc7817a8f1cac3e4", "state_index": 22}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-22", "id": "dc16c01d3ad977245839", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "928ebc7817a8f1cac3e4", "state_index": 22}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-22", "id": "ce5af4c8e7e5a269c2e3", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "928ebc7817a8f1cac3e4", "state_index": 22}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-23", "id": "419738285e8f1188abac", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "53b0770ec36835b81d3a", "state_index": 23}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-23", "id": "3b81128faa5361fb6f52", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "53b0770ec36835b81d3a", "state_index": 23}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-23", "id": "78710abd489a76e7db25", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "53b0770ec36835b81d3a", "state_index": 23}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-23", "id": "724630de24b8b460a3bb", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "53b0770ec36835b81d3a", "state_index": 23}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-23", "id": "7d2d915848b70af07fbe", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "53b0770ec36835b81d3a", "state_index": 23}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-23", "id": "fe96afe6d72a9f467d75", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "53b0770ec36835b81d3a", "state_index": 23}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-23", "id": "800d47937a344f61289f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "53b0770ec36835b81d3a", "state_index": 23}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-23", "id": "4a5ef7e836e4a2f852a4", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "53b0770ec36835b81d3a", "state_index": 23}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-23", "id": "1ffd6a5d7507f3776997", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "53b0770ec36835b81d3a", "state_index": 23}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-23", "id": "f3220a1ef1c56040c783", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "53b0770ec36835b81d3a", "state_index": 23}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-23", "id": "4efe91fcb6b1be8fedfc", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "53b0770ec36835b81d3a", "state_index": 23}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-23", "id": "76cc7f955bc2ee697a81", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "53b0770ec36835b81d3a", "state_index": 23}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-23", "id": "315f167030195f31a119", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "53b0770ec36835b81d3a", "state_index": 23}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-23", "id": "4c1b6464b13b22b95a24", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "53b0770ec36835b81d3a", "state_index": 23}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-23", "id": "d65e0a63f03178632553", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "53b0770ec36835b81d3a", "state_index": 23}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-23", "id": "c70b4b1f019acff741d7", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "53b0770ec36835b81d3a", "state_index": 23}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-23", "id": "44312cb91024a84ed4c6", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "53b0770ec36835b81d3a", "state_index": 23}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-23", "id": "d38e7a70b3515506747f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "53b0770ec36835b81d3a", "state_index": 23}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-23", "id": "69069252de0ae9150ad4", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "53b0770ec36835b81d3a", "state_index": 23}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-23", "id": "7bed8c07819d947dcf75", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "53b0770ec36835b81d3a", "state_index": 23}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-23", "id": "096a21873723b4a84dc1", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "53b0770ec36835b81d3a", "state_index": 23}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-24", "id": "fa500a9cf97a42d3476f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "056cc5b726d6e8300a77", "state_index": 24}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-24", "id": "fe45174f1eee7c487f4a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "056cc5b726d6e8300a77", "state_index": 24}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-24", "id": "a1c83a7b81fe56e67012", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "056cc5b726d6e8300a77", "state_index": 24}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-24", "id": "67f1e088e2b6c3320fa4", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "056cc5b726d6e8300a77", "state_index": 24}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-24", "id": "df5d54ce778ef87a453f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "056cc5b726d6e8300a77", "state_index": 24}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-24", "id": "ffbeb374c8ffcf8ad2f1", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "056cc5b726d6e8300a77", "state_index": 24}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-24", "id": "102c35e4cb7134810226", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "056cc5b726d6e8300a77", "state_index": 24}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-24", "id": "dcb36e3e076b8bff8eb6", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "056cc5b726d6e8300a77", "state_index": 24}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-24", "id": "ca937519e3e3facfcdac", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "056cc5b726d6e8300a77", "state_index": 24}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-24", "id": "f738c6a3ede0d24452e9", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "056cc5b726d6e8300a77", "state_index": 24}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-24", "id": "025fa3ed62564dd78a15", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "056cc5b726d6e8300a77", "state_index": 24}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-24", "id": "16dd9381234b6f179f4c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "056cc5b726d6e8300a77", "state_index": 24}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-24", "id": "cdadea1f5b14583e8def", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "056cc5b726d6e8300a77", "state_index": 24}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-24", "id": "05c0602d1b5c6014e288", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "056cc5b726d6e8300a77", "state_index": 24}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-24", "id": "9ebaeda2c0c40408b88b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "056cc5b726d6e8300a77", "state_index": 24}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-24", "id": "b5a13c90e1cc91c70d9d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "056cc5b726d6e8300a77", "state_index": 24}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-24", "id": "d943efe1dcfe04647709", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "056cc5b726d6e8300a77", "state_index": 24}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-24", "id": "b85fb607ae360eef5f7c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "056cc5b726d6e8300a77", "state_index": 24}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-24", "id": "0113b887e8c4b48853a8", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "056cc5b726d6e8300a77", "state_index": 24}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-24", "id": "8a14c042892677ff67e1", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "056cc5b726d6e8300a77", "state_index": 24}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-24", "id": "c1bc5b5c2b2f2b85fde3", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "056cc5b726d6e8300a77", "state_index": 24}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-25", "id": "ecd44e044091771150eb", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e3ce8ec496dbc9974f94", "state_index": 25}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-25", "id": "c892068fb1deddb19151", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e3ce8ec496dbc9974f94", "state_index": 25}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-25", "id": "5f1ad0680ffb1fbcd1bd", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e3ce8ec496dbc9974f94", "state_index": 25}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-25", "id": "99faff553fa07aa1dc12", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e3ce8ec496dbc9974f94", "state_index": 25}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-25", "id": "91db48cbcd6287d46ff9", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e3ce8ec496dbc9974f94", "state_index": 25}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-25", "id": "d9fd44a5753092f440b4", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e3ce8ec496dbc9974f94", "state_index": 25}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-25", "id": "bd5e4b00b16b49dde56f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e3ce8ec496dbc9974f94", "state_index": 25}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-25", "id": "ef423edea2784ffe978b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e3ce8ec496dbc9974f94", "state_index": 25}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-25", "id": "67caed6986df493c3839", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e3ce8ec496dbc9974f94", "state_index": 25}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-25", "id": "04f17c6f9a72c4109a6d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e3ce8ec496dbc9974f94", "state_index": 25}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-25", "id": "fbe14c5dc3249f6569eb", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e3ce8ec496dbc9974f94", "state_index": 25}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-25", "id": "4b194583d9d460dd960e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e3ce8ec496dbc9974f94", "state_index": 25}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-25", "id": "dd48b29ca669297b85db", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e3ce8ec496dbc9974f94", "state_index": 25}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-25", "id": "d4a270a073bd56afb77b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e3ce8ec496dbc9974f94", "state_index": 25}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-25", "id": "8d270c316021350ad45f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e3ce8ec496dbc9974f94", "state_index": 25}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-25", "id": "e2b823955cb62c16a312", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e3ce8ec496dbc9974f94", "state_index": 25}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-25", "id": "9ce9595f21b48e168276", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e3ce8ec496dbc9974f94", "state_index": 25}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-25", "id": "28ca7934f96c201668e8", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e3ce8ec496dbc9974f94", "state_index": 25}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-25", "id": "a1dd5e546c56be106a86", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e3ce8ec496dbc9974f94", "state_index": 25}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-25", "id": "5d0e0f018afd9541ee5c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e3ce8ec496dbc9974f94", "state_index": 25}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-25", "id": "3373f9deb3ff8a7b41d2", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "e3ce8ec496dbc9974f94", "state_index": 25}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 58:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-26", "id": "b465baa3fa6bd3072859", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a5b234c2e4fb304f1071", "state_index": 26}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-26", "id": "fb836b45f61882c846be", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a5b234c2e4fb304f1071", "state_index": 26}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-26", "id": "451d89badd1bd1603197", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a5b234c2e4fb304f1071", "state_index": 26}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-26", "id": "171d7902cefeae13e14a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a5b234c2e4fb304f1071", "state_index": 26}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-26", "id": "a4f856d0f89eb8cb5041", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a5b234c2e4fb304f1071", "state_index": 26}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-26", "id": "9e56baad2bb5796c7473", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a5b234c2e4fb304f1071", "state_index": 26}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-26", "id": "caddf613b5de8a10ceef", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a5b234c2e4fb304f1071", "state_index": 26}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-26", "id": "615a448d7d595142fd6a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a5b234c2e4fb304f1071", "state_index": 26}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-26", "id": "9542ddd3099027215068", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a5b234c2e4fb304f1071", "state_index": 26}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-26", "id": "52bd6d894f0e7506ba31", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a5b234c2e4fb304f1071", "state_index": 26}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-26", "id": "9d206f1044a28ef6616a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a5b234c2e4fb304f1071", "state_index": 26}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-26", "id": "890afcd3e2de84022176", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a5b234c2e4fb304f1071", "state_index": 26}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-26", "id": "ea7bda9981311747da56", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a5b234c2e4fb304f1071", "state_index": 26}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-26", "id": "908f1d2c7f1a31c6a621", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a5b234c2e4fb304f1071", "state_index": 26}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-26", "id": "4d52b546cfb7ae7da914", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a5b234c2e4fb304f1071", "state_index": 26}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-26", "id": "30bb036e8dc7a92e9b7d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a5b234c2e4fb304f1071", "state_index": 26}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-26", "id": "8489b9c759005b3d5db2", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a5b234c2e4fb304f1071", "state_index": 26}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-26", "id": "d632a411fcd49676a92e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a5b234c2e4fb304f1071", "state_index": 26}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-26", "id": "e62cc81b5567d31ffdc2", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a5b234c2e4fb304f1071", "state_index": 26}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-26", "id": "f2b25a88930bf769b91b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a5b234c2e4fb304f1071", "state_index": 26}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-26", "id": "4455943d0dfc7e9b5170", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a5b234c2e4fb304f1071", "state_index": 26}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-27", "id": "b34076d5c8af5bf16afd", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "d142f7fd0efa0eddc788", "state_index": 27}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-27", "id": "aa469aa697e518325968", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "d142f7fd0efa0eddc788", "state_index": 27}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-27", "id": "87c0bcd422b33ea08052", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "d142f7fd0efa0eddc788", "state_index": 27}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-27", "id": "07280d394fd9dcc5f664", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "d142f7fd0efa0eddc788", "state_index": 27}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-27", "id": "755d00e5c18acaa0890a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "d142f7fd0efa0eddc788", "state_index": 27}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-27", "id": "206f6b958a8d5f9b6242", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "d142f7fd0efa0eddc788", "state_index": 27}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-27", "id": "84db1e786d4c6cb37d7b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "d142f7fd0efa0eddc788", "state_index": 27}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-27", "id": "b9c3de0361777fd8a70a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "d142f7fd0efa0eddc788", "state_index": 27}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-27", "id": "52142f3ff9e45d0d1c8d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "d142f7fd0efa0eddc788", "state_index": 27}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-27", "id": "1735f6d3c8b0e04fffa4", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "d142f7fd0efa0eddc788", "state_index": 27}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-27", "id": "aac5f32e26c155d2c826", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "d142f7fd0efa0eddc788", "state_index": 27}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-27", "id": "456109fbe6dba0d5bb27", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "d142f7fd0efa0eddc788", "state_index": 27}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-27", "id": "731e4a445aea941b88d9", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "d142f7fd0efa0eddc788", "state_index": 27}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-27", "id": "1d995cae5a31321be292", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "d142f7fd0efa0eddc788", "state_index": 27}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-27", "id": "7551a06d445de2ca8fc4", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "d142f7fd0efa0eddc788", "state_index": 27}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-27", "id": "db556e47471c51ddc184", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "d142f7fd0efa0eddc788", "state_index": 27}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-27", "id": "5e0c7bc1be0b95ff5377", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "d142f7fd0efa0eddc788", "state_index": 27}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-27", "id": "f1278d0aa8a44cd3db90", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "d142f7fd0efa0eddc788", "state_index": 27}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-27", "id": "036421b184c27d291790", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "d142f7fd0efa0eddc788", "state_index": 27}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-27", "id": "fa55077dc2bc65b57c71", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "d142f7fd0efa0eddc788", "state_index": 27}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-27", "id": "03c9008f38e90475638d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "d142f7fd0efa0eddc788", "state_index": 27}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-28", "id": "ada7c7cf461eee540dcc", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3476d3f4f32290fe57c3", "state_index": 28}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-28", "id": "11113449a866da3fa8d8", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3476d3f4f32290fe57c3", "state_index": 28}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-28", "id": "f54c13f9666448838c38", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3476d3f4f32290fe57c3", "state_index": 28}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-28", "id": "3ecdb42d0759d22e311b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3476d3f4f32290fe57c3", "state_index": 28}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-28", "id": "b9dd18e88ac917800ae2", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3476d3f4f32290fe57c3", "state_index": 28}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-28", "id": "0ac55ad76d520049f4e9", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3476d3f4f32290fe57c3", "state_index": 28}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-28", "id": "a725e6a8bc78eb9560fe", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3476d3f4f32290fe57c3", "state_index": 28}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-28", "id": "213570165bdeb525a447", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3476d3f4f32290fe57c3", "state_index": 28}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-28", "id": "fbb404e82d27696db5c4", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3476d3f4f32290fe57c3", "state_index": 28}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-28", "id": "b95c66a6cd6c988880e7", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3476d3f4f32290fe57c3", "state_index": 28}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-28", "id": "b749eda06599f83e28a7", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3476d3f4f32290fe57c3", "state_index": 28}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-28", "id": "8564fd29499648732479", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3476d3f4f32290fe57c3", "state_index": 28}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-28", "id": "bb923b4fea4446257166", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3476d3f4f32290fe57c3", "state_index": 28}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-28", "id": "9ae2aa58c8ba1b65e6cf", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3476d3f4f32290fe57c3", "state_index": 28}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-28", "id": "984d1e20afe9932d7487", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3476d3f4f32290fe57c3", "state_index": 28}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-28", "id": "e4d09e8e25ff69ed7a96", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3476d3f4f32290fe57c3", "state_index": 28}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-28", "id": "caa9fa585f4c57467cf6", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3476d3f4f32290fe57c3", "state_index": 28}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-28", "id": "826be77dbb5d5b5fd591", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3476d3f4f32290fe57c3", "state_index": 28}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-28", "id": "e1b5748734489c0c1651", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3476d3f4f32290fe57c3", "state_index": 28}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-28", "id": "e0274dd28d3070e791fe", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3476d3f4f32290fe57c3", "state_index": 28}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-28", "id": "8937df5e742cee43990b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "3476d3f4f32290fe57c3", "state_index": 28}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-29", "id": "195983aeed118c94786e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c979db7416b206c1eb09", "state_index": 29}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-29", "id": "ab743219892ff36bc22f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c979db7416b206c1eb09", "state_index": 29}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-29", "id": "9eaf6d591d7cf8b7bba4", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c979db7416b206c1eb09", "state_index": 29}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-29", "id": "fe9ed2ed7210aeb55188", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c979db7416b206c1eb09", "state_index": 29}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-29", "id": "dd9b6ed14e224a7c2a16", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c979db7416b206c1eb09", "state_index": 29}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-29", "id": "50a0fd59fec565105d92", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c979db7416b206c1eb09", "state_index": 29}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-29", "id": "607c7915579c187142a1", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c979db7416b206c1eb09", "state_index": 29}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-29", "id": "b631b6ee872888d1365d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c979db7416b206c1eb09", "state_index": 29}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-29", "id": "7f7483dd3c45ef1a5534", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c979db7416b206c1eb09", "state_index": 29}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-29", "id": "bec9a791ece6f8ba9e13", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c979db7416b206c1eb09", "state_index": 29}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-29", "id": "f8c6ffe7ad23e9f51f47", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c979db7416b206c1eb09", "state_index": 29}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-29", "id": "c0803b327792df5d6d4a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c979db7416b206c1eb09", "state_index": 29}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-29", "id": "4a4280d8bd9c9f9e9578", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c979db7416b206c1eb09", "state_index": 29}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-29", "id": "b7a9c6aae72431e502a9", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c979db7416b206c1eb09", "state_index": 29}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-29", "id": "c48403b1faaf6fead0ab", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c979db7416b206c1eb09", "state_index": 29}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-29", "id": "90a7de3869d971bb000c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c979db7416b206c1eb09", "state_index": 29}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-29", "id": "b340ce5c871164bd3945", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c979db7416b206c1eb09", "state_index": 29}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-29", "id": "14fa865ff31b6f04d8fa", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c979db7416b206c1eb09", "state_index": 29}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-29", "id": "9dfa8d135cc1bae8a2f7", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c979db7416b206c1eb09", "state_index": 29}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-29", "id": "2a5d8d0a07b2a1b8a901", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c979db7416b206c1eb09", "state_index": 29}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-29", "id": "d92785540b2b9ab82219", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "c979db7416b206c1eb09", "state_index": 29}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-30", "id": "9cbd36adfcfc2414f617", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f7403e39d6796072491c", "state_index": 30}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-30", "id": "28a32f9ca1b236539ad4", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f7403e39d6796072491c", "state_index": 30}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-30", "id": "2600c9c10780f2686149", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f7403e39d6796072491c", "state_index": 30}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-30", "id": "3d311bffebde4bc44ff9", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f7403e39d6796072491c", "state_index": 30}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-30", "id": "3e03e85b267f7a25eab6", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f7403e39d6796072491c", "state_index": 30}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-30", "id": "bc22e1d23d096960f832", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f7403e39d6796072491c", "state_index": 30}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-30", "id": "2d48f597aad5fc751251", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f7403e39d6796072491c", "state_index": 30}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-30", "id": "b29679faefb72eed30fd", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f7403e39d6796072491c", "state_index": 30}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-30", "id": "2dc7de64b90859fd7050", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f7403e39d6796072491c", "state_index": 30}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-30", "id": "61c84d768394abe37a57", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f7403e39d6796072491c", "state_index": 30}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-30", "id": "c73e8b95eaaa1ad2dbe2", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f7403e39d6796072491c", "state_index": 30}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-30", "id": "67c88c9fc60c9f738abf", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f7403e39d6796072491c", "state_index": 30}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-30", "id": "7b6eab1ea803fcd14e77", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f7403e39d6796072491c", "state_index": 30}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-30", "id": "0d7486d10887f6ae5b49", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f7403e39d6796072491c", "state_index": 30}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-30", "id": "2cdd4835a0cfb6b52b08", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f7403e39d6796072491c", "state_index": 30}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-30", "id": "3a2f10ab5e31e5e0e531", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f7403e39d6796072491c", "state_index": 30}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-30", "id": "acdd1f76eb0b204586db", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f7403e39d6796072491c", "state_index": 30}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-30", "id": "62f8937147fed61100bb", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f7403e39d6796072491c", "state_index": 30}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-30", "id": "8d11f6074c204e65bdd6", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f7403e39d6796072491c", "state_index": 30}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-30", "id": "72d48eb330ae27969f85", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f7403e39d6796072491c", "state_index": 30}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-30", "id": "fd9c3d6a74199fec3e0d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "f7403e39d6796072491c", "state_index": 30}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe producer directly authorizes the assistant to approve props.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A and Candidate B report late submissions but provide neither outage documentation nor signature information.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue author corrects the date to June and expressly rejects the earlier July date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-31", "id": "0782998cb8825b51b233", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a060fd4621be415e9f1a", "state_index": 31}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-31", "id": "c7df33ba31ee431ff4f7", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a060fd4621be415e9f1a", "state_index": 31}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-31", "id": "0269a518fbc9f0065950", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a060fd4621be415e9f1a", "state_index": 31}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-31", "id": "60197ef3cf3a7876586a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a060fd4621be415e9f1a", "state_index": 31}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-31", "id": "f505180756623794e6f8", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a060fd4621be415e9f1a", "state_index": 31}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-31", "id": "dd826eaf82d1917bce02", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a060fd4621be415e9f1a", "state_index": 31}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-31", "id": "9812b422d30fe699eb83", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a060fd4621be415e9f1a", "state_index": 31}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-31", "id": "8e5103bc79447188b08d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a060fd4621be415e9f1a", "state_index": 31}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-31", "id": "33defe954e1fe73b85ea", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a060fd4621be415e9f1a", "state_index": 31}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-31", "id": "b053586eda54c5be4a23", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a060fd4621be415e9f1a", "state_index": 31}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-31", "id": "23edc2c7d2c382f75e5e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a060fd4621be415e9f1a", "state_index": 31}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-31", "id": "49a5988c7c7059d30473", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a060fd4621be415e9f1a", "state_index": 31}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-31", "id": "61088dd0caeb4461d860", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a060fd4621be415e9f1a", "state_index": 31}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-31", "id": "2f58ba98544124cf4956", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a060fd4621be415e9f1a", "state_index": 31}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-31", "id": "31a5d06495cabd86dcf9", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a060fd4621be415e9f1a", "state_index": 31}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-31", "id": "495e1a3dfa3932608ccf", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a060fd4621be415e9f1a", "state_index": 31}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-31", "id": "6af9fef0082e371f3dc7", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a060fd4621be415e9f1a", "state_index": 31}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-31", "id": "8fae0e11c5013f7051be", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a060fd4621be415e9f1a", "state_index": 31}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-31", "id": "f4829f1432300db07eb3", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a060fd4621be415e9f1a", "state_index": 31}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-31", "id": "ea2957feb162747a32c4", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a060fd4621be415e9f1a", "state_index": 31}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-31", "id": "cb24887d88c41b95d297", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "a060fd4621be415e9f1a", "state_index": 31}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe guide registered for training, but completion information is not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: Streaming was authorized and the complete record says permission remains in force. Candidate B: Streaming was authorized, then explicitly withdrawn.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging but excludes water damage even when faulty. The lamp is faulty, but the cause and presence of water damage are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied, but none were provided. I dispute that statement.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nA note mentions an egg without describing a discovery or whether the account is fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning the notebook on Monday. The complete permission record confirms that she has not withdrawn it and it remains valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nAn assistant works on the production, but no approval grants or delegation history are provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied the translated manual but explicitly did not supply the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator but is confirmed unable to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback and is confirmed able.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe catalogue mentions a date correction but gives no corrected date.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-32", "id": "eca9371590c052f92d8a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2b0f8eda8903e38a47de", "state_index": 32}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-32", "id": "d39609882c0a7caca71f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2b0f8eda8903e38a47de", "state_index": 32}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-32", "id": "0619c3673e1b1d6f2458", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2b0f8eda8903e38a47de", "state_index": 32}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-32", "id": "e963cc5058433ae88d19", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2b0f8eda8903e38a47de", "state_index": 32}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-32", "id": "b52b17c6376d079bc35e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2b0f8eda8903e38a47de", "state_index": 32}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-32", "id": "fafc80e6998c279029c8", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2b0f8eda8903e38a47de", "state_index": 32}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-32", "id": "f94ad249daf193ab5e5e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2b0f8eda8903e38a47de", "state_index": 32}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-32", "id": "238e4d2bf1e72d2509b1", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2b0f8eda8903e38a47de", "state_index": 32}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-32", "id": "8cceed43bdac5fcd8b5e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2b0f8eda8903e38a47de", "state_index": 32}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-32", "id": "bfbd3eae5343079f9a5d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2b0f8eda8903e38a47de", "state_index": 32}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-32", "id": "2627b4c2ba571aef609f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2b0f8eda8903e38a47de", "state_index": 32}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-32", "id": "b0afc53dfeb61e7b211d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2b0f8eda8903e38a47de", "state_index": 32}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-32", "id": "6dd5a5405302976b2569", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2b0f8eda8903e38a47de", "state_index": 32}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-32", "id": "e201950b9719ec18df0d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2b0f8eda8903e38a47de", "state_index": 32}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-32", "id": "83da02bd361b6cc168f8", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2b0f8eda8903e38a47de", "state_index": 32}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-32", "id": "237bb9aece8405817147", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2b0f8eda8903e38a47de", "state_index": 32}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-32", "id": "b5f6a467f7ede7876dc1", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2b0f8eda8903e38a47de", "state_index": 32}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-32", "id": "39e576e9bf7a60073cbe", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2b0f8eda8903e38a47de", "state_index": 32}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-32", "id": "1e54374958de7923e146", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2b0f8eda8903e38a47de", "state_index": 32}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-32", "id": "da756730ed3f284e227a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2b0f8eda8903e38a47de", "state_index": 32}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-32", "id": "1933db499065d09d4c8a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2b0f8eda8903e38a47de", "state_index": 32}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist confirms that the wreath was delivered. Candidate B: The florist offers to deliver a wreath tomorrow.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: Remove the window and install a replacement. Candidate B: Reseal the existing window and keep its frame.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nCandidate A: A permission form is mentioned but its terms and later changes are missing. Candidate B: The event name is supplied without permission history.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nFor this task, the current signed checklist controls readiness when it conflicts with chat. Candidate A: Chat says ready, but the signed checklist says not ready. Candidate B: Chat says not ready, but the signed checklist says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. The in-house workshop cannot perform this repair; the outside workshop can.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe guest forwards the listing but provides no comment about towels or the stay.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe account owner permits changing the display name but expressly forbids changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: Here are insulation-test steps; no test was run. Candidate B: The completed insulation test passed.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe owner authorized scanning on Monday. The supplied record omits all later permission changes and does not establish current validity.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate is in storage. The warehouse inventory says it has left storage. Both reports are current. The supplied protocol says the warehouse inventory controls location decisions whenever these two sources conflict.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor supplied both the translated manual and the glossary.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nCandidate A is preferred and Candidate B is the fallback, but neither candidate's ability to handle the language is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-33", "id": "525d7b4fb78fe876688c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "01020a1eaf46ec2fba5d", "state_index": 33}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-33", "id": "8f2b2bf755ea1437abf1", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "01020a1eaf46ec2fba5d", "state_index": 33}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-33", "id": "612007ed2fc7371c8992", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "01020a1eaf46ec2fba5d", "state_index": 33}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-33", "id": "2cd6fc8993c77d65530b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "01020a1eaf46ec2fba5d", "state_index": 33}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-33", "id": "b32d822b7211b2c0c25b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "01020a1eaf46ec2fba5d", "state_index": 33}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-33", "id": "f7cca8df9ae2a235ca18", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "01020a1eaf46ec2fba5d", "state_index": 33}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-33", "id": "94e6bb4d12f813123feb", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "01020a1eaf46ec2fba5d", "state_index": 33}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-33", "id": "6136005af5b7861ad66c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "01020a1eaf46ec2fba5d", "state_index": 33}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-33", "id": "23e014fcbc2fb9899698", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "01020a1eaf46ec2fba5d", "state_index": 33}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-33", "id": "8dcb7cf878a64839a026", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "01020a1eaf46ec2fba5d", "state_index": 33}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-33", "id": "a464605c10210edad127", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "01020a1eaf46ec2fba5d", "state_index": 33}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-33", "id": "375bf431d98250b93785", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "01020a1eaf46ec2fba5d", "state_index": 33}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-33", "id": "7d5521df842cdb736a25", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "01020a1eaf46ec2fba5d", "state_index": 33}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-33", "id": "7e2a86ce2923ea1a1b2e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "01020a1eaf46ec2fba5d", "state_index": 33}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-33", "id": "bea9770399b489698fb8", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "01020a1eaf46ec2fba5d", "state_index": 33}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-33", "id": "00ba476777582bb75866", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "01020a1eaf46ec2fba5d", "state_index": 33}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-33", "id": "4ac171bfa6c98b363d77", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "01020a1eaf46ec2fba5d", "state_index": 33}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-33", "id": "3833283d798993539e96", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "01020a1eaf46ec2fba5d", "state_index": 33}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-33", "id": "64c3872396555bf9e345", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "01020a1eaf46ec2fba5d", "state_index": 33}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-33", "id": "b8803f01525a22b9117b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "01020a1eaf46ec2fba5d", "state_index": 33}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-33", "id": "d591e861500045fb80d7", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "01020a1eaf46ec2fba5d", "state_index": 33}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer approves making a sample badge but expressly withholds approval for mass production.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: I can deliver a wreath tomorrow. Candidate B: The wreath was delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The window faces a courtyard. Candidate B: The owner gives a postcode.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened paint tin has a manufacturing defect and also contains added solvent. Both facts are confirmed.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts. Candidate A: The checklist says ready and chat says not ready. Candidate B: The checklist says not ready and chat says ready.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Neither workshop's ability to perform this repair is supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect permits reproducing a plan in an internal training booklet and expressly forbids selling copies.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner expressly permits changing the recovery email.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The cable is red. Candidate B: The tester is in a drawer.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids any further delegation. Candidate A: I received prop approval authority directly from the director. Candidate B: I received it only from A, and have no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk log says the crate has left storage; the warehouse inventory says it is in storage. Both reports are current, and the inventory controls conflicts under the protocol.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nThe contractor reports working on the handover but supplies no delivery record for either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern attached instructions for weighing the parcel and explicitly says no weighing has been performed.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-34", "id": "3b51dc427ef80b74043a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6a06a2f278301c1412ee", "state_index": 34}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-34", "id": "60eddb1f382ff14a5441", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6a06a2f278301c1412ee", "state_index": 34}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-34", "id": "9bcdaea127011b8e438a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6a06a2f278301c1412ee", "state_index": 34}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-34", "id": "6f365d972848553558f8", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6a06a2f278301c1412ee", "state_index": 34}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-34", "id": "550d90336950bbb02082", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6a06a2f278301c1412ee", "state_index": 34}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-34", "id": "aa82b5638ae5af3283d9", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6a06a2f278301c1412ee", "state_index": 34}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-34", "id": "18300205da6b06e427e7", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6a06a2f278301c1412ee", "state_index": 34}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-34", "id": "b555a3bc234843e8fd20", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6a06a2f278301c1412ee", "state_index": 34}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-34", "id": "3803aef68fc4cf402cfa", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6a06a2f278301c1412ee", "state_index": 34}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-34", "id": "ab67da43bc4ae225ca45", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6a06a2f278301c1412ee", "state_index": 34}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-34", "id": "e304f1a695fbde4c57c0", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6a06a2f278301c1412ee", "state_index": 34}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-34", "id": "25e0f2a9c06d53597433", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6a06a2f278301c1412ee", "state_index": 34}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-34", "id": "3d9ac02495a549a4104a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6a06a2f278301c1412ee", "state_index": 34}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-34", "id": "2591d84ff86f249a2209", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6a06a2f278301c1412ee", "state_index": 34}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-34", "id": "25a6e0e8ce0d1ea7f94d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6a06a2f278301c1412ee", "state_index": 34}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-34", "id": "a3e3796eca86c829f954", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6a06a2f278301c1412ee", "state_index": 34}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-34", "id": "7ddd9ab13077ca92888a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6a06a2f278301c1412ee", "state_index": 34}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-34", "id": "d78f6f4563e106ec8da3", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6a06a2f278301c1412ee", "state_index": 34}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-34", "id": "9d0cd18ef17c13da62ab", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6a06a2f278301c1412ee", "state_index": 34}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-34", "id": "1df4bafb7a4cc3c6edb9", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6a06a2f278301c1412ee", "state_index": 34}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-34", "id": "44017db8148c3210016f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "6a06a2f278301c1412ee", "state_index": 34}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer explicitly approves mass production of the badge.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The florist gives an address. Candidate B: The wreath contains lilies.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gave Lina authority to approve exhibit labels and explicitly forbade further delegation. Lina then told Mo to approve them. The rule states an attempted forbidden delegation grants no authority; Mo has no other grant.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin has a manufacturing defect and the inspection confirms no solvent was added.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe signed checklist controls conflicts, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only project names without checklist or chat status.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician says terminal Cedar is online. Terminal Maple is explicitly offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe architect expressly permits selling copies of the plan.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe owner requested an account update, but the fields to be changed are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first allowed a surveyor to enter the attic. Before the visit she explicitly withdrew that permission. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe rule permits direct delegation by the director but forbids further delegation. Candidate A: My only claimed authority came from B. Candidate B: The director directly granted me prop approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe protocol gives the inventory priority, but the current inventory and desk-log entries for the crate are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician ordered replacement lenses. The workshop confirms they have not yet been fitted to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern performed the weighing and recorded the parcel's measured weight.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 57:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-35", "id": "f00c9176f28153c8f28f", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2797f8c23d05c0ee06b3", "state_index": 35}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-35", "id": "c8a5d6ef75a562963ef3", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2797f8c23d05c0ee06b3", "state_index": 35}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-35", "id": "ba750d461270b4bae384", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2797f8c23d05c0ee06b3", "state_index": 35}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-35", "id": "c6f9cd7e5d252cda36bf", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2797f8c23d05c0ee06b3", "state_index": 35}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-35", "id": "56e9b631b9c908ef50b6", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2797f8c23d05c0ee06b3", "state_index": 35}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-35", "id": "928d2b4c5b113bbc2a41", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2797f8c23d05c0ee06b3", "state_index": 35}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-35", "id": "104df5fe18af8b577229", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2797f8c23d05c0ee06b3", "state_index": 35}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-35", "id": "fc4ef1e7e8ba8bbd663a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2797f8c23d05c0ee06b3", "state_index": 35}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-35", "id": "0b717b676ca99c6da2f3", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2797f8c23d05c0ee06b3", "state_index": 35}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-35", "id": "e26ab8478352370e3e90", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2797f8c23d05c0ee06b3", "state_index": 35}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-35", "id": "7a5adce0f58a1d858cff", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2797f8c23d05c0ee06b3", "state_index": 35}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-35", "id": "17462af26d11cd865ab9", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2797f8c23d05c0ee06b3", "state_index": 35}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-35", "id": "247da9db054f89019069", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2797f8c23d05c0ee06b3", "state_index": 35}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-35", "id": "c405c99adf36ebb91c82", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2797f8c23d05c0ee06b3", "state_index": 35}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-35", "id": "d389a7c15e15ca02d49e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2797f8c23d05c0ee06b3", "state_index": 35}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-35", "id": "2eca4a721a9a5f483c42", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2797f8c23d05c0ee06b3", "state_index": 35}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-35", "id": "cfd9128cd7ef603af7e3", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2797f8c23d05c0ee06b3", "state_index": 35}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-35", "id": "7d7f7eb15f02b322ea4b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2797f8c23d05c0ee06b3", "state_index": 35}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-35", "id": "8c14269b66b5a123dd75", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2797f8c23d05c0ee06b3", "state_index": 35}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-35", "id": "77f66218281e0194bf31", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2797f8c23d05c0ee06b3", "state_index": 35}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-35", "id": "30cb11dad75568dfc8f1", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "2797f8c23d05c0ee06b3", "state_index": 35}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe designer issued a decision but its production scope is unavailable.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The sponsor confirms receipt of a grant application but explicitly says no award decision has been made. Candidate B: The sponsor confirms that the grant was awarded.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nThe director gives Mo direct authority to approve exhibit labels; the record confirms this grant is valid.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nThe opened tin is defective, but whether solvent was added is not known.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall and school both confirm they are available and suitable for the meeting.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician confirms terminal Maple is online and terminal Cedar is offline.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nAn architect's permission letter exists, but the uses it allows are omitted.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: The editor quotes a proposal for a paywall only to argue against it. Candidate B: The editor endorses introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner first refused attic entry, then explicitly granted it before the visit. No later decision exists.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe director's delegation rule is supplied, but Candidate A and Candidate B provide only their names and no authority histories.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete incident package requires both a timeline and a remedy report. Candidate A: Both documents are attached. Candidate B: Only the timeline is attached; the remedy report is absent.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe workshop confirms it fitted the replacement lenses to the customer's glasses.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nThe intern supplies a parcel identifier but no procedure or measurement information.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 55:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 56:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-36", "id": "8738f5549cc1d06a4ddb", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 0, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "dff920af9ab2c92711a8", "state_index": 36}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly identify a person, organization, or system actor?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe expedition log says the team reached the lower camp but turned back before reaching the summit.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-36", "id": "dab1bb9752d928230712", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 1, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "dff920af9ab2c92711a8", "state_index": 36}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly describe an action that occurred or was requested?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe expedition log says the team reached the lower camp but turned back before reaching the summit.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-36", "id": "903173fcc95e4ac17195", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 2, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "dff920af9ab2c92711a8", "state_index": 36}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a specific date, time, or bounded time window?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe expedition log says the team reached the lower camp but turned back before reaching the summit.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-36", "id": "f2a49158c6cf2c138be4", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 3, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "dff920af9ab2c92711a8", "state_index": 36}, "question": "Does the primary record contain a numerical quantity, price, count, or threshold?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe expedition log says the team reached the lower camp but turned back before reaching the summit.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-36", "id": "307d620bf89faa7f577e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 4, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "dff920af9ab2c92711a8", "state_index": 36}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly negate or deny a material claim?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe expedition log says the team reached the lower camp but turned back before reaching the summit.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-36", "id": "a5246bfa9d24e5400eb5", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 5, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "dff920af9ab2c92711a8", "state_index": 36}, "question": "Does the primary record express uncertainty rather than a settled fact?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe expedition log says the team reached the lower camp but turned back before reaching the summit.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-36", "id": "6fe44ae54a24d48c72e3", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 6, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "dff920af9ab2c92711a8", "state_index": 36}, "question": "Does the primary record establish authorization for an action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe expedition log says the team reached the lower camp but turned back before reaching the summit.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-36", "id": "57b95087341a47cf3548", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 7, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "dff920af9ab2c92711a8", "state_index": 36}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an action completed successfully?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe expedition log says the team reached the lower camp but turned back before reaching the summit.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-36", "id": "2ac0aa23e161309bd4fd", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 8, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "dff920af9ab2c92711a8", "state_index": 36}, "question": "Does the primary record establish that an attempted action failed?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe expedition log says the team reached the lower camp but turned back before reaching the summit.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-36", "id": "2a63d1a008499a578c4e", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 9, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "dff920af9ab2c92711a8", "state_index": 36}, "question": "Does the primary record contain an explicit request from a user or customer?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe expedition log says the team reached the lower camp but turned back before reaching the summit.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-36", "id": "180495b6742b5e4a0b9c", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 10, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "dff920af9ab2c92711a8", "state_index": 36}, "question": "Does the primary record state a policy, rule, or contractual requirement?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe expedition log says the team reached the lower camp but turned back before reaching the summit.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-36", "id": "6b29b6ccf7b1aea58ab0", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 11, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "dff920af9ab2c92711a8", "state_index": 36}, "question": "Does the primary record state an exception to a policy or rule?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe expedition log says the team reached the lower camp but turned back before reaching the summit.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-36", "id": "6d303526bdf9448048d1", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 12, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "dff920af9ab2c92711a8", "state_index": 36}, "question": "Does the primary record provide direct evidence rather than an unsupported assertion?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe expedition log says the team reached the lower camp but turned back before reaching the summit.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-36", "id": "e220f244d46ed04a3a60", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 13, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "dff920af9ab2c92711a8", "state_index": 36}, "question": "Does the primary record contain two claims that materially contradict each other?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe expedition log says the team reached the lower camp but turned back before reaching the summit.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-36", "id": "9ca2d99a18f5d41ad08d", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 14, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "dff920af9ab2c92711a8", "state_index": 36}, "question": "Is material information missing for deciding what action should be taken?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe expedition log says the team reached the lower camp but turned back before reaching the summit.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-36", "id": "dcd13ec9cee28c9f9854", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 15, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "dff920af9ab2c92711a8", "state_index": 36}, "question": "Does the primary record contain personal or account-specific information?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe expedition log says the team reached the lower camp but turned back before reaching the summit.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-36", "id": "39685613525e4d5d1189", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 16, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "dff920af9ab2c92711a8", "state_index": 36}, "question": "Does the primary record concern a payment, refund, invoice, or other financial transaction?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe expedition log says the team reached the lower camp but turned back before reaching the summit.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-36", "id": "23413859c5b32174137b", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 17, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "dff920af9ab2c92711a8", "state_index": 36}, "question": "Does the primary record concern software, infrastructure, or another technical system?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe expedition log says the team reached the lower camp but turned back before reaching the summit.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-36", "id": "9525d3025bc8e0c5b0ff", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 18, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "dff920af9ab2c92711a8", "state_index": 36}, "question": "Does the primary record compare two or more candidate explanations or actions?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe expedition log says the team reached the lower camp but turned back before reaching the summit.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-36", "id": "82fff92fa614d407d774", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 19, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "dff920af9ab2c92711a8", "state_index": 36}, "question": "Does the primary record explicitly require human review or approval?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe expedition log says the team reached the lower camp but turned back before reaching the summit.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given."}
{"family": "shape_benchmark", "group_id": "shape777-state-36", "id": "94a5b148e1fac2d93c8a", "options": [{"description": "Yes, the criterion is satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "yes"}, {"description": "No, the criterion is not satisfied by the primary record.", "id": "no"}], "provenance": {"kind": "project_owned_systems_fixture", "question_index": 20, "rights": "Project-authored source scenarios; systems fixture has no gold labels.", "source_group_id": "dff920af9ab2c92711a8", "state_index": 36}, "question": "Does the primary record alone provide enough evidence for an irreversible automatic action?", "split": "systems_only_no_gold", "state": "PRIMARY RECORD:\nThe expedition log says the team reached the lower camp but turned back before reaching the summit.\n\nUNRELATED BACKGROUND RECORDS:\n\nBACKGROUND 1:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 2:\nCandidate A: The customer asks how an engraving would look but explicitly declines having it engraved yet. Candidate B: The customer instructs the shop to engrave the ring.\n\nBACKGROUND 3:\nCandidate A: The grant was awarded. Candidate B: The application was received; the award remains undecided.\n\nBACKGROUND 4:\nMo is named in correspondence about labels, but no authority grants or delegation terms are supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 5:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 6:\nThe agreed handover requires both the source files and the user guide. The delivery record confirms the source files arrived and explicitly says the guide was not delivered.\n\nBACKGROUND 7:\nThe town hall is confirmed unavailable, while the school is available and suitable.\n\nBACKGROUND 8:\nThe technician lists both terminals but omits their connection status.\n\nBACKGROUND 9:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 10:\nThe applicant lives in the valley but works outside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 11:\nCandidate A: I endorse introducing a paywall. Candidate B: I reject introducing a paywall.\n\nBACKGROUND 12:\nThe homeowner gave an early permission decision, but neither its content nor any later decisions are available.\n\nBACKGROUND 13:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 14:\nThe desk clerk reports the equipment deposit as paid. The signed ledger reports it as unpaid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 15:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A: The timeline is attached but the remedy report is absent. Candidate B: Both the timeline and remedy report are attached.\n\nBACKGROUND 16:\nThe optician records a glasses prescription but no order or fitting status.\n\nBACKGROUND 17:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 18:\nThe visitor's wristband covers the sculpture garden and expressly excludes the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 19:\nCandidate A: Please engrave the ring. Candidate B: Show me how it would look, but do not engrave it yet.\n\nBACKGROUND 20:\nCandidate A: The sponsor gives its name. Candidate B: The application has a reference number.\n\nBACKGROUND 21:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 22:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My submission was late because of a documented outage and includes the required signature. Candidate B: Mine was late because of a documented outage but lacks the signature.\n\nBACKGROUND 23:\nThe agreed handover requires the source files and user guide. The delivery record confirms that both arrived.\n\nBACKGROUND 24:\nThe two venues are named, but neither availability nor suitability is provided.\n\nBACKGROUND 25:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 26:\nThe guide completed first-aid training but not mountain-navigation training.\n\nBACKGROUND 27:\nThe applicant lives outside the valley and works inside it.\n\nBACKGROUND 28:\nCandidate A: The editor names the magazine. Candidate B: The website has a blue header.\n\nBACKGROUND 29:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 30:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but explicitly excludes water damage even when the lamp is faulty. This opened lamp is faulty because water entered it. No other cause is present.\n\nBACKGROUND 31:\nThe desk clerk reports the deposit unpaid, while the signed ledger reports it paid. Both reports are current.\n\nBACKGROUND 32:\nA complete package requires both documents. Candidate A and Candidate B give only package titles and no attachment information.\n\nBACKGROUND 33:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 34:\nDuring a puppet show, a character announces the discovery of a dragon egg. The production note states this is fictional and no real egg was discovered.\n\nBACKGROUND 35:\nThe wristband expressly excludes the sculpture garden and covers only the rooftop terrace.\n\nBACKGROUND 36:\nCandidate A: The customer gives a name. Candidate B: The ring is silver.\n\nBACKGROUND 37:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given.\n\nBACKGROUND 38:\nThe producer authorizes the stage manager to approve props. The stage manager passes the task to an assistant, who has no other approval authority.\n\nBACKGROUND 39:\nAccept late submissions for documented outages, except that missing signatures always disqualify. Candidate A: My late outage-related submission lacks the signature. Candidate B: My late outage-related submission has the signature. Both outages are documented.\n\nBACKGROUND 40:\nThe agreement requires source files and a user guide, but the delivery record gives no information about either item.\n\nBACKGROUND 41:\nCandidate A is the preferred translator and is confirmed able to handle this language. Candidate B is the fallback translator and is also able to handle it.\n\nBACKGROUND 42:\nThe catalogue originally dated the letter to June. Its author issued a correction stating July was correct and June was mistaken.\n\nBACKGROUND 43:\nThe guide completed mountain-navigation training but not first-aid training.\n\nBACKGROUND 44:\nThe applicant supplies a name but no home or work location.\n\nBACKGROUND 45:\nCandidate A: The owner asks to reseal the existing window while keeping its frame. Candidate B: The owner asks to remove the window and fit a complete replacement.\n\nBACKGROUND 46:\nCandidate A: The speaker authorized streaming, then explicitly withdrew the authorization before the event. Candidate B: The speaker authorized streaming and the complete record confirms it remains in force.\n\nBACKGROUND 47:\nThe return policy accepts faulty lamps despite opened packaging, but excludes water damage even when faulty. This opened lamp has a manufacturing wiring fault, with no water damage or other exclusion.\n\nBACKGROUND 48:\nThe record mentions the desk clerk and ledger but supplies neither deposit status.\n\nBACKGROUND 49:\nThe routing rule assigns repairs to the in-house workshop when it can perform the work; use the outside workshop only when the in-house workshop cannot. Both workshops confirm they can perform this repair.\n\nBACKGROUND 50:\nThe guest writes, \"The listing says towels are supplied. I agree: fresh towels were provided during my stay.\"\n\nBACKGROUND 51:\nThe note describes a real bird egg discovered outside a performance and expressly says the discovery was not fictional.\n\nBACKGROUND 52:\nThe visitor has a wristband but its covered areas are not supplied.\n\nBACKGROUND 53:\nCandidate A: The note records that the completed insulation test passed. Candidate B: The note lists insulation-test steps but says no test was run.\n\nBACKGROUND 54:\nOn Monday the owner authorized scanning her notebook. On Tuesday she explicitly withdrew that authorization. The record says withdrawals cancel earlier permission, and no later permission was given."}